Abstract

A quality picture book can enhance instruction and build positive and meaningful connections that enable students to visualize and engage in mathematics. To learn more about how preservice teachers analyze and select quality picture books in their mathematics lessons, a study was conducted over two semesters during a required field experience component of an undergraduate teacher education program. The preservice teachers were required to use a picture book to explore a mathematical concept in three mathematics-focused lesson plans. Data was collected through preservice teachers’ lesson plan reflections, summative reflections over the experience of integrating picture books and mathematics, and focus group interviews. The qualitative data analysis revealed that in planning mathematics lessons to incorporate quality picture books, preservice teachers most often selected a book based on the topic to be taught or based on previous use by their university instructor. The quality of the selected picture books did not appear to be a critical criterion for selection. As a result, it is important for teacher educators to model ways of assessing and selecting quality picture books and provide opportunities for preservice teachers to incorporate these techniques.

Keywords

Children’s Literature Mathematics Teacher education Picture books

Dr. Sandi Cooper is a Professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Baylor University. Her research interests include: literature and mathematics, mathematics for young learners, and mathematics in informal learning sites.

Dr. Rachelle Meyer Rogers is a Clinical Associate Professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Baylor University. Her research interests include: literature and mathematics, clinical experiences through web-based case scenarios, lesson study, and action research.

Dr. Barbara Purdum-Cassidy is a Clinical Associate Professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Baylor University. Her research interests include: creating urban literacy initiatives, the role of informal environments, and teachers’ beliefs and efficacy for teaching writing.

Dr. Suzanne M. Nesmith is Associate Professor in the School of Education at Baylor University. Her research interests include ways in which content, instructional strategies, and instructional contexts work together in the construction of meaning and understanding.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to Actions: Ensuring Mathematical Success for All. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar

Nesmith, Suzanne, and Cooper, Sandi. (2010). Trade Books in the Mathematics Classroom: The Impact of Many, Varied Perspectives on Determinations of Quality. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 24(4), 279–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Welchman-Tischler, Rosamond. (1992). How to Use Children’s Literature to Teach Mathematics. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Inc.Google Scholar

Whitin, David. (2002). The Potentials and Pitfalls of Integrating Literature into the Mathematics Program. Teaching Children Mathematics, 8(7), 503–504.Google Scholar

Whitin, David, and Whitin, Phyllis. (1996). Fostering Metaphorical Thinking Through Children’s Literature. In Portia Elliott and Margaret Kenny (Eds.), Communication in Mathematics K-12 and Beyond (1996 yearbook of the National Council of Teacher of Mathematics (pp. 60–65). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar

Whitin, David, and Whitin, Phyllis. (2004). New Visions for Linking Literature and Mathematics. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar

Wilburne, Jane, and Napoli, Mary. (2008). Connecting Mathematics and Literature: An Analysis of Pre-service Elementary School Teachers’ Changing Beliefs and Knowledge. Issues in the Undergraduate Mathematics Preparation of School Teachers, 2, 9.Google Scholar